Also I’d like to point out that once if too often.
People are pretty often wrongly convicted in a trial. Without a trial it is reasonable to assume the chance of error increases.
I’ve read your posts, are you inferring that in this case the alleged pervert may be innocent?
Hmmmm. So, according to you, if someone is released from prison after DNA evidence conclusively shows that the person was innocent, there is still no "proof" of his innocence since there has been no trial in which the DNA evidence was submitted?
Also, if someone, God forbid, guns down your family in front of you, you will steadfastly maintain that there is no "proof" that the killer actually did it unless he is convicted in a court of law?
IMHO, you have a questionable concept of what "proof" is.
I still await your evidence that "all too often" vigilantes bring the wrong person to justice...